If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Hi,
just to defend Solaris a little bit. This OS's gcc compiler by *default* produces 32bit applications even on amd64 hosts and even Solaris 11 is 64bit. On the other hand majority of Linux distros for amd64 are pure 64bit which means also their gcc compilers produce 64bit apps. As amd64 is way much better in perfromance than pure old x86 I would really strongly recommend to rerun the benchmarks and enforce 64bit app compilation on solaris by using `-m64' switch. Nothing more is needed.
Thanks!
Karel

Comment

I still wonder from time to time what would've happened if the OpenSolaris code had been released as GPLv3 as some rumors had speculated.
Solaris had some interesting tech in it, but overall it was very hardware-limited. You had to basically buy hardware for it. Linux was already miles ahead of it in that regard.

Any chance Solaris had to shine is long gone. Oracle was just the final nail in the coffin.

Yeah, and wonder what would happen if it was under released under the Linux-compatible GPLv2 license, or the 2-clause BSD license or ISC license.

The Solaris results are also unusual in that it performs poorly on tests that have nothing to do with the OS. I'd be really curious about performance if benchmarks were compiled by suncc. However, that wouldn't be a fair comparison.

I agree, that did look odd. I also would like to add, why is Fedora noticeably lower than Ubuntu? The gap seems suspicious or perhaps biased, unless of course it's a regression/bug caused by GCC 4.7.

Comment

Hi, these tests results are flawed. Solaris is using ZFS in these tests, so to accurately compare it with other Linux distributions you would have to partition the Solaris filesystems with UFS or change the Linux distributions to use BTRFS. ZFS is known to be slower than UFS due to software RAID checksums but gives you a lot more flexibility (snapshots and repartitioning) and redundancy.

Comment

Hi, these tests results are flawed. Solaris is using ZFS in these tests, so to accurately compare it with other Linux distributions you would have to partition the Solaris filesystems with UFS or change the Linux distributions to use BTRFS. ZFS is known to be slower than UFS due to software RAID checksums but gives you a lot more flexibility (snapshots and repartitioning) and redundancy.

Tests aren't flawed in this case, because to have some equivalent to UFS Linux should be using Ext2... If Solaris does only have two file systems it's not Linux problem. btrfs isn't stable yet, so your suggestion is stupid.

Comment

Hi,
just to defend Solaris a little bit. This OS's gcc compiler by *default* produces 32bit applications even on amd64 hosts and even Solaris 11 is 64bit. On the other hand majority of Linux distros for amd64 are pure 64bit which means also their gcc compilers produce 64bit apps. As amd64 is way much better in perfromance than pure old x86 I would really strongly recommend to rerun the benchmarks and enforce 64bit app compilation on solaris by using `-m64' switch. Nothing more is needed.
Thanks!
Karel

To defend or to burden it? 32bit should have less overhead.

Comment

Tests aren't flawed in this case, because to have some equivalent to UFS Linux should be using Ext2... If Solaris does only have two file systems it's not Linux problem. btrfs isn't stable yet, so your suggestion is stupid.

Wow, troll much? I suggested 2 different, but more accurate, ways to test Solaris vs. Linux and your comment is "that's stupid." Take a look at what software raid does to performance (btrfs vs. ext4 for instance) and then try again, genius.